PDA

View Full Version : New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile



FBD
02-24-2015, 06:30 PM
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/07/12/313399/conspiracy-theorists-vs-govt-dupes/

Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events. The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites. The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority. Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.” Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 - a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan - was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.”

In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist - a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory - accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it. Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists to not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.” Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called “conspiracy theorists”: The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.”

In other words, people who use the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination. That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations.

DeHaven-Smith also explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved “state crimes against democracy.” An obvious example is the link between the JFK and RFK assassinations, which both paved the way for presidencies that continued the Vietnam War.

According to DeHaven-Smith, we should always discuss the “Kennedy assassinations” in the plural, because the two killings appear to have been aspects of the same larger crime. Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed “conspiracy theory” label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief. In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong “confirmation bias” - that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the “conspiracy theory” label) to avoid conflicting information.

The extreme irrationality of those who attack “conspiracy theories” has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled “Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion,” they wrote: "“If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur.”"

But now, thanks to the internet, people who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public conversation; the CIA’s 44-year-old campaign to stifle debate using the “conspiracy theory” smear is nearly worn-out. In academic studies, as in comments on news articles, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous - and more rational - than anti-conspiracy ones. No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks. KB/HSN

DemonGeminiX
02-24-2015, 06:31 PM
:lol:

Whatever.

Hal-9000
02-24-2015, 06:32 PM
I got to Conspiracy theorists’ sane...and bailed :lol:










luv you FBD :dance:

FBD
02-24-2015, 06:33 PM
"I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it."
-Lord Acton

"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
-Lord Acton

Teh One Who Knocks
02-24-2015, 06:33 PM
:lol:

Whatever.

It's an Iranian story, so it must be true :thumbsup:

PorkChopSandwiches
02-24-2015, 06:36 PM
I find it hilarious how you are all so trusting of a government that has repeatedly been shown to have lied to you, and you continue to believe their version of the stories, until it finally comes out that...surprise...they have been lying to you

DemonGeminiX
02-24-2015, 06:37 PM
It's an Iranian story, so it must be true :thumbsup:

I didn't even see that... if there was any lingering doubt whatsoever, that killed it.

:rofl:

FBD
02-24-2015, 06:41 PM
:razz: you all just dont want to admit it, and will hopefully not be too confused when such things are well known common information. some day you will say to yourself "how was I fooled" :haha:


All I really had to do to get over 911 was this:
-the commission report contains falsehoods. I knew that within 2 weeks of its release, and many people knew that also, regardless of whether or not they believed the government was responsible or complicit. the door's already open, kiddies.
-"too many would know to keep it a secret" just didnt hold sway any longer...how much would it take to buy your loyalty? a million? ten? fifty? its all funny money folks, we'll give you a nice big brick of it if its important enough. (see ISIS' 400 brick of 400 million bucks)
-I actually finally got around to fully reading ae911truth.org and that removed any lingering question over whether or not the government was complicit in the act. or at least facets of the government.


i'm sure its just coincidence that the iraq invasion plans were drawn up prior to 911, the patriot act was already written, when it all happened.

but hey, feel free to say to yourself "this is simply too far outside of my worldview to believe"....because I still havent seen a single decently articulated argument for why those buildings came down, every single one of them relies on very major things any architect would take great pains in design to safeguard against. and in the case of 911, we have exactly that, architects having taken great pains to ensure that the WTC towers would withstand plane impacts and prolonged fires.


it just wasnt built to withstand thermite cutting charges ;)

Hal-9000
02-24-2015, 06:43 PM
I find it hilarious how you are all so trusting of a government that has repeatedly been shown to have lied to you, and you continue to believe their version of the stories, until it finally comes out that...surprise...they have been lying to you

I believe in very little of what the government and newspapers tell me. They've been putting a spin on things since TV reporting took off in the 50's.

I feel that we should have the right to question decisions made 'in our best interest', but it seems that when people do that they die of mysterious car accidents and suicides.

Ever since I saw a piece on CIA black ops in the early 80's where the person had worked for various shadowy government agencies and blew the whistle on everything from arms sales to cocaine revenue, I don't buy what appears on CNN/

DemonGeminiX
02-24-2015, 06:43 PM
:lmao:

FBD
02-24-2015, 06:43 PM
It's an Iranian story, so it must be true :thumbsup:
That is a Paul Craig Roberts article, not Iranian.



I didn't even see that... if there was any lingering doubt whatsoever, that killed it.

:rofl:
But of course, feel free to interpret the hosting as an indicator of its veracity. its always about the messenger of course and nevermind the content of the story :lol:


you guys really crack me up :lol: :rofl:


wait a sec, hang on...


you telling me that's passing for a logic chain? :haha:


(wtf am I saying, the papers told you putin was evil and you believed, saddam was an evil hostile threat to the USA and you believed, the CIA took down half the murrah building and yall believed timmy was alone even though they actually let experts say there was no way a single truck bomb did that...it must be pretty cozy in that there shelter :lol:)

FBD
02-24-2015, 06:45 PM
Hal knows deep down. So does Muddy. Its just politically incorrect to say it, and you all know I dont give two flying shits for political correctness. :lol:



I can only chalk up the disbelief to a commensurate level of attachment to one's particular worldview...sorry to say... but hey, I was curious to see what kind of dumbshitness I'd get tossed back in posting this, I didnt see or expect the Iranian one and the complete dismissal of it because it was hosted on an iranian site :lol: I dont know the codes, so it would have just as easily been Ireland or....well hell no Israel wouldnt be printing an article like this for their sheep :lol:

redred
02-24-2015, 07:39 PM
moved :lol:

FBD
02-24-2015, 07:43 PM
:lol: proving the point... ;) :razz:

FBD
08-16-2020, 04:15 PM
Interesting to read this article now in light of the past year or so! (but not the silly bickering and arguing over oo killed oo :lol: )